Bonding and Bridging - Assignment Example

Bonding and Bridging xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Name xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Course xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Lecturer xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Date Q.1 How bonding and bridging network ties affects innovation activities Innovation refers to the act of creating novel ideas and operations that aim at raising production levels from the existing circles to new levels of production that ensures improved effectiveness of an organization. Innovation is composed of five aspects which include improvement of the existing good, the raising of new production methods, exploring and bringing up new markets, taking over of raw materials and reorganizing of an industry from its former set up (Schumpeter 2000). Bonding and bridging are two aspects of networking of production organization enabling the innovation levels within that very organization. Bonding involves interpersonal relations among close friends such as in an organization, in social groups or social media while bridging involves a movement to areas of little presence and establishing the presence of products. Bridging is more of conquest to areas of less concentration and familiarizing or creating new relations (Nee & Ingram 1998). Other than innovation, bridging and bonding can also be used in acquiring new resources either in areas of familiarity or areas of unfamiliarity (Lee 2009). This discussion endeavours to indicate how bonding and bridging of network ties is of significance in both innovation and acquisition of new resources. Bonding and bridging of network ties affect innovation in different ways. The effects may be both positive and negative. Bonding social ties are a small subset of an individual total social network, this is the hub network. For most of the individuals, core ties are the principal source of interpersonal contact (White & Johansen 2005). These are people’s core close friends, and as such, are a source of consideration as well as discussion of topics that vary from politics to the incomprehensible. Core confidants are likely to be those who are particularly vital in a life of an individual, as well as those people a person can discuss important matters with such as politics and business issues. The modern evolution of the analysis of the socio-institutional determinants of innovation gives a fertile ground for the progression of appropriate working definitions of social capital as well as for the conceptualisation of its associates with innovative performance. An innovation is a social procedure entrenched in local surrounding and it is analytically affected by the strength as well as greatness of social life Bridging ties are the network members who give access to unique resources as well as information. Bridging ties may entail some core network members, but this is possibly to come from weak ties outside of the core (Cross & Cummings 2004). For instance an entrepreneur can be termed as an innovator who executes changes within markets by performing new combinations. The activities of an entrepreneurial entail discovering opportunities in the economy system. Entrepreneurship involves exploitation of chances which is normally associated with the direction or blending of productive inputs. They are associated with creative as well as innovative actions and bears risk while following opportunities. Entrepreneurs can as well take a managerial role in their activities, but the regular management of a continuous function is not regarded as entrepreneurial function. People in the organization can be regarded as entrepreneurs, since they follow the exploitation of chances. The significance of resource allocation to innovation, and the complication of the association to the procedure, makes it organized analysis vital to a widespread economic theory of innovation. It is not amazing that is broadly considered as the initiator in the economic analysis of innovation, thus becoming the core of the study of innovation. This is because innovation has been the driving force behind the progress of economic. Innovation is mostly led by the entrepreneurs as well as the big business in existence (Beugelsdijk & Smulders 2009). For instance, a successful bonding can be particularly in politics whereby a leader have got a good relations with people, when times comes for that leader to get help such as asking for votes people always consider the relationship between that leader and the community. On the other hand, an example of a successful bridging can be particularly in arm’s length ties that support diverse kinds of access as well as governance benefits in market exchanges. The network provide connection while the market offers premium benefits since a firm is enabled to create the benefits of partnering through embedded ties with the benefits of brokerage given by arm’s length ties. In regards to this, when firms are tied to their lenders, they are likely to get lower interest. In the creation of new ideas, entrepreneurs using bonding will seek advice from their close ties to compare and contrast their ideas with the aim of picking the best to apply in their production. In bridging, entrepreneurs will move outside their circles to look for successful people in particular fields of production to get new ideas which are in turn reintroduced into their own circles creating innovations (Zhang et al 2011). Bonding has limitation; there is a general tendency that acquaintances will reason in more or less the same way because of the shared social factors and information. There is little possibility of coming up with creative ideas. Innovation may not be as noble as possible and this will mean little advances being made. Similarly, bridging which involves movement to unfamiliar territories may be coupled with mistrust by the custodians. After all, there may be a perception that these are competitors seeking to limit the market profits that have been enjoyed by those who have ventured before. In this mistrust, therefore, it will be hard for them to divulge the most useful information for the success of their rivals (Hampton 2011) Examples of failed bonding can be especially in a given culture where certain perceptions within that culture create bias while one tries to go beyond the cultural borders of that given society. The failures of bridging are witnessed times when business organizations seeking expansion go to others close to or similar to what they want to venture into (Gluckler, 2006). Chances of receiving inadequate information are very high because of the fear of competition that may ensue. In both of these cases, it shows that negative effects may arise from the utilization of bridging and bonding of network ties in innovation. Q.2 Bonding and bridging network ties in acquisition of resources Bonding and bridging network ties are very important for organisation to acquire resources for more production. Bonding ties helps organisation in acquiring resources by slab competitors for contracts and employments often won by people with organisations contacts. This is achieved by excluding non members to access inside contacts which are made available only for organisation members. Bonding network ties makes the organisation base its safety net on family and friends in times of hardships (Woolcock & Narayan 2000). Bonding social ties is more useful for acquisition of resources in developing organisations which lacks organisational transparency. This is because there is direct interaction with work colleagues, family, neighbour, kin and clubs to solve problems which require downward solution in social hierarchy. As stated by Lee (2009) advantage of bonding networking ties in resource acquisition is that it supports safety nets reoccurring, normative and altruistic social interactions. Bonding social capital increases commitment by establishing strong relations in neighbours and family to access resources. Nevertheless, resources scope is limited by over reliance on bonding network ties which calls for bridging relation to translate information and behaviour into more diversity. As pointed out by Martinez & Aldrich (2011) organisations which are growth oriented and successful shift from bonding relations to bridging relations. This is due to downward and small networks of bonding ties compared to upward and large networks of bridging relations. Bridging social capital enhances social interaction between organisation and its outside financiers like banks. This helps the organisation to be active in marketing trade unions and industrial. Bridging social relations facilitates establishment of new markets which is important for acquisition of resource by expanding sales, quality control and international procurement (Lee 2009). Bonding social relations will enable the organisation to seek new markets for its products with support of known people especially during hard moments. Bridging is needed in order to get new customers and partners in market (Salvato & Melin, 2008). The introduction of new product requires sales expansion and reliable customers both existing and new customers which is the work of both bonding and bridging social relation. For instance, Medic Wine expansion utilised foreign suppliers 50% of imported grapes and acquired new customers by use of bridging social relations. Through bonding and bridging establishment of new raw materials supply is made possible. To partnerships with new media and suppliers for organisational raw materials is achieved through bridging relations. Introduction of new production method requires bonding and bridging innovation so as to extend revenue sales (Andersen 2011). Introduction of new organisation of an industry calls for bonding and bridging social relations. Bonding relations retains existing customers while bridging seeks new customers. Bridging facilitates upward reaching of an individual in the social hierarchy. It facilitates mobility of labour and resource divergent which makes it possible for value added creativity and innovation. Bridging social relations enables direct ties with political bureaucrats, charities, professional advisors, industrial elites, venture capitalists and government agencies for acquisition of resources (Martinez & Aldrich 2011). On the other hand new markets are introduced. A great controversy is noticed by the way network tie channels develop and change within time. Bringing the concept of social networks provides weak tool for innovation systems analysis. The idea behind network analysis an actor’s method cannot be understood unless relations to actions with others are connected through network tie (Beugelsdijk & Smulders 2009). Entrepreneurs who have past direct ties with the owners of resource are more likely not to obtain resources from the latter if the direct network ties appear weak. Considering resources, strong ties are relied unto to be more important in reducing perceived uncertainty and information asymmetry. Studies and evidence show that network ties mechanism of information transfer can increase the uncertainty and information asymmetry hence decreasing resource acquisition probability (Zhang etal, 200 Other theories says that network ties fails to solve information problems and thus does not promote trust in resource acquisition in ways such as; fails to allow potential resource owners to get superior information, fails to facilitate the use of diligence that owners lack confidence in assessment of innovation, however, since reputation takes time to achieve, it can also be destroyed in no time without strong disincentives creating risk on resource acquisition (Zhang etal, 2003). Evidence from different cities is however that resource acquisition influences business performance and development but effects of network ties are seen on acquiring resources but access to resources varies depending on social structure which is not about skill and methods but a good or bad network tie (Martinez & Aldrich 2011). The suggestion is that new combinations of resources much depend on exchange which is proved to secure best sales and lower opportunism. Networks can be featured by depth dimension but focus is put on the effect of network on resource acquisitions (Andersen 2011). In conclusion then, bonding social relation in organisation consolidates relations between family and neighbours already known by organisations in order to access resources. Bonding supports innovation and creativity of known members in organisation to be competitive in market. Bridging deals with establishment of new social relations with unknown people for organisation to be able to access resources through innovative and creative means. Without bridging social relations organisation cannot expand or acquire new resources for its success and growth. Bonding and bridging social relations are very vital in organisation success and growth. Bonding as pointed out ensures the known people remain in organisation in order to support it at all times more so during hard times. On the other hand bridging seeks new relations with people who are not known by organisation in order to expend organisation’s operations. Both ties make it possible for innovation and creativity in organisation in order to acquire resources. Innovation, creativity and resources are united by bonding and bridging social ties in organisation has noted in the discussion. Therefore, bonding and bridging social relations are important for any organisation acquisition of available resources for its prosperity. References Zhang, S, Anderson, S & Zhan, M 2011, the differentiated impact of bridging and bonding social capital on economic well-being: An individual level perspective, Journal of sociology and social welfare, 38(1), 119-142. Hampton, K, N 2011, Comparing bonding and bridging ties for democratic engagement: everyday use of communication technologies within social networks for civic and civil behaviours, Information, Communication & Society,14(4), 510-528. Lee, R 2009, Social capital and business and management: setting a research agenda, International Journal of Management Reviews, 11, 247-273. Nee, V, & Ingram, P 1998, Embeddedness and beyond: institutions, exchange, and social structure. The new institutionalism in sociology, 19-45. Beugelsdijk, S, & Smulders, S 2009, Bonding and bridging social capital and economic growth White, D, & Johansen, U 2005, Network Analysis and Ethnographic Problems: Process Models of a Turkish Nomad Clad [ie Clan], Lexington books Cross, R, & Cummings, J 2004, Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47(6), 928-937. Martinez, A, & Aldrich, E 2011, networking strategies for entrepreneurs: balance cohesion and diversity. Salvato, C, & Melin L 2008, creating value across generations in family-controlled business: the role of family social capital, 21(3), 259-276. Woolcock M, & Narayan D 2000, implications for development theory, research and policy, 15(2), 225-249. Andersen, S 2011, Joseph A. Schumpeter: a theory of social and economic evolution, Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire, UK, Palgrave Macmillan. Read More